CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.

306 ITR 392Supreme Court of India2008#107 most cited

What is CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. authority for?

The "Purpose Test" determines whether an incentive or subsidy is a capital or revenue receipt for income tax purposes. If the incentive's purpose is to enable an assessee to set up a new industry or make investments in capital assets, it is a capital receipt and not taxable.

577

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. · 306 ITR 392 · capital receipt vs revenue receipt · subsidy taxability · incentive scheme purpose test · sales tax incentive capital receipt · excise duty exemption capital receipt · section 2(24)(xviii) · section 43(1) · investment incentive taxability · purpose test subsidy · nature of receipt

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.

DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Degee Cotsyn Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.118/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit-4(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Degee Cotsyn Pvt. Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 4Th Floor, Central Buidling Road, Mumbai-400020. No.3, Master Boman Lane, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd4304P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Mumbai Dated 04.10.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. The Sole Issue Is Regarding The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao To The Tune Of Rs.5,58,52,480/- Which Assessee Claimed To Be Incentive In Nature Of Capital [Mega Project Incentive In The Form Of Sales Tax Incentive Etc.)] Whereas According To The Ao It Was Revenue In Nature. Therefore, Deduction Claimed By Assessee Was Not Allowed By The Ao. & Thereafter He Also Made Adjustment Of Book Profit Made By The Ao U/S 115Jb Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Disallowed The Same & Thus Assessed The Book Profit At 2 A.Y. 2014-15 Degee Cotsyn Pvt. Ltd. Rs.2,06,95,298/-. Against The Action Of The Ao, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Was Pleased To Delete The Same. Aggrieved, By The Aforesaid Action Of The Ld. Cit(A), The Revenue Is Before Us.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 115Section 115J

…halkar Brothers, order dated 8th June, 2011 has opined that the object of the subsidy was to promote construction of multiplex theatre complexes. Such receipt of subsidy was held on “capital account”. In this decision, the decision of Ponni Sugars & Chemicals 306 ITR 392 (SC) and the decision of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. 228 ITR 253 (SC) has been discussed. It was opined that the test is that the character of the receipt in the 7 A.Y. 2014-15 Degee Cotsyn Pvt. Ltd. hands of the assessee has to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy was granted. Likewise, in the case of CIT v/s. Ki…

DCIT Central Circle -2(2), Maharashtra vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide

ITA 445/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdeputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Income Tax, Cc, 2(2) 1102, Parinee Crescezo, Old Cgo Building, G, Block, Plot No. 806, 8Th Floor, M.K. Road C38/39, Behind Mca, Mumbai – 400020 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Respondent .. Appellant M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Vs. Acit, Cc-2(2) 11Th Floor, 1102, Parinee Crescezo, G, Block, Plot No. C38/39, Behind Mca, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143(2)

…is incentive receipt in the form of sales tax subsidy is in some way connected to capital receipt in the form of technology upgradation and expansion of capacity of the plant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) has examined this issue in great detail and held that if the purpose of incentive or subsidy was to enable the assessee to set up a new unit or to expand the existing unit then the receipt of the subsidy was of capital in nature. For clarity the relevant portion of the decision is reproduced as under: “15. In the decision of House of Lords i…

M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide

ITA 402/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdeputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Income Tax, Cc, 2(2) 1102, Parinee Crescezo, Old Cgo Building, G, Block, Plot No. 806, 8Th Floor, M.K. Road C38/39, Behind Mca, Mumbai – 400020 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Respondent .. Appellant M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Vs. Acit, Cc-2(2) 11Th Floor, 1102, Parinee Crescezo, G, Block, Plot No. C38/39, Behind Mca, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143(2)

…is incentive receipt in the form of sales tax subsidy is in some way connected to capital receipt in the form of technology upgradation and expansion of capacity of the plant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) has examined this issue in great detail and held that if the purpose of incentive or subsidy was to enable the assessee to set up a new unit or to expand the existing unit then the receipt of the subsidy was of capital in nature. For clarity the relevant portion of the decision is reproduced as under: “15. In the decision of House of Lords i…